[Peace-discuss] [OccupyCU] Finkelstein on Ghandi
ewj at pigsqq.org
ewj at pigsqq.org
Fri Sep 7 03:33:50 UTC 2012
》I have to wonder why you used the two categories of Catholic and Latino as if they were necessarily distinct
》groups. Most Latinos that I know are Catholic, although most Catholics are not Latino.
There is no implication on my part that the two groups are non-intersecting (distinct?) sets, or even that they are best represented as discrete sets. Considering them as fuzzy sets with partial membership is also interesting. Some Catholics are more Catholic than others. I am not sure, for instance, which of {Cheech Marin, Taco Bell} is more Latino. Eagles and Robins have greater membership in the set Birds than do penguins and middle fingers.
Some folks are even whiter than me. - Todd.
> -------Original Message-------
> From: Laurie Solomon <ls1000 at live.com>
> To: E. Wayne Johnson <ewj at pigsqq.org>
> Cc: peace-discuss <peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net>
> Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] [OccupyCU] Finkelstein on Ghandi
> Sent: Sep 07 '12 10:44
>
> You notice that I said “more or less” when talking about homogeneous
> ideology and culture ( which can also be extended to the practices of
> civility and compromise) and not “totally” or “completely”
> homogeneous. That little spat was a kind of exception; but it lasted only
> a few years with a much longer period of animosity and disdain after the
> fighting came to an end. However, more important to the issue, it can be
> argued that both the Northern and Southern whites in the upper and middle
> classes as well as even the lower classes had more in common culturally
> and ideologically than they had differences. Both regarded the non-white
> population as being less than fully human or equal to themselves. Both
> supported a capitalist version of economics with special emphasis on
> private property rights and an aversion to taxes. Both believed in a
> limited notion of participatory democracy for an aristocratic class of
> landed and/or wealthy upper and middle class white males. Neither
> believed in equitable justice, civil rights, education, or human living
> conditions for all as a public obligation of governments and employers or
> rights for ordinary citizenry. The disagreement was less over moral and
> ideological philosophy than over economic issues relating toconflicts
> between the needs and interests of urban industrial versus rural agrarian
> economies.
>
> As for whether the Republican Party poorly represents the views of
> Christianity or not, that is a value judgment and really is not relevant to
> the discussion at hand. The fact is that Christianity has formally or
> informally, overtly or covertly, explicitly or implicitly been the default
> religion of the establishment, of the organizations and agencies it has
> created and supports, of the institutions, political parties and
> government that operate in the society, and of the society itself. There
> has been and is a systemic bias and prejudice against other religions and
> against atheism with a few begrudging bones being tossed to them from time
> to time. That the religious right has gravitated to the Republican Party
> is true in the sense that the Republican Party has always represented and
> been dominated by WASPs and the Protestant religious right only naturally
> finds a home there. However, the Democratic Party has in the past been
> dominated by and representative of mostly Irish and Italian,
> non-Protestant Christians along with the minority religions (i.e., Jews
> mostly) who were not accepted by the Republican WASPs; subsequently, the
> Catholic religious right (and now the Jewish religious right, although they
> are now beginning to move to the Republican Party now that the
> anti-Semitism there has decreased and many of the Protestant religious
> right have become quasi-Zionists) gravitated to the Democratic Party as a
> natural home. The recent post-WWII increase in Democratic Party
> membership by blacks and Latinos has changed the complexion of the
> Democratic party slightly in that the Irish and Italian Catholics still
> dominate the Party but African-American protestants and Muslims along with
> Latino Catholics have increased in numbers requiring the Party to
> represent a few more of their interests and values – at least
> symbolically.
>
> I have to wonder why you used the two categories of Catholic and Latino as
> if they were necessarily distinct groups. Most Latinos that I know are
> Catholic, although most Catholics are not Latino. It may indicate that
> for most lay Catholics and many Latinos homosexuality and abortion are not
> as high priority an issue with respect to other issues as they may be for
> the Church leadership who tend to be conservative and place a high
> priority on those issues.
>
>
> FROM: [LINK: mailto:ewj at pigsqq.org] E. Wayne Johnson
> SENT: September 06, 2012 6:48 PM
> TO: [LINK: mailto:ls1000 at live.com] Laurie Solomon
> CC: [LINK: mailto:swag901 at ymail.com] Stan Waggoner ; [LINK:
> mailto:peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net] peace-discuss
> SUBJECT: Re: [Peace-discuss] [OccupyCU] Finkelstein on Ghandi
>
> Up until the Viet Nam war, the culture and ideology of Amerika was more
> or less homogeneous; with the Viet Nam war and after, it has become more
> diverse and contentious.Really?
> I suppose that little spat between the south and the Yankees was pretty
> much a celebration of national unity and amity?
>
> I would say that the Republican Party rather poorly represents the views
> of Christianity.
>
> It doesnt make any sense at all that Catholics and Latinos should lean
> Democrat when one
> considers that the Democrats tend to favour homosexuality and abortion,
> which things are
> shunned by Catholics and Latinos. But the Republicans have been
> ineffective in opposing
> the creep of homosexuality, militant feminism, and abortion, so one could
> hardly say that the
> Republican party represents genuine Christian values in any significant
> way.
>
> Rick Warren, the charlatan neocon whizkid who is author of books that many
> of
> Laurie's churchy WASPs buy and read, came out in favour of Obama
> in 2008. Many would identify him with the Religious Right, fewer would
> identify Warren as a bloodsucking douchebag
> (there's an unfortunate unintended mixed metaphor... I meant he was a
> bloodsucker
> and a db... a db is a pressure device...not a vacuum... uh...er...).
>
> The Republican party has indeed for a long time been divided into
> factional groups. It is clear
> that the neoconservatives are dominant at present. Some so-called
> "religious rightists" like
> Gary Bauer are quite simply just textbook neocons.
>
> *
> The Tea Party was originally a grassroots libertarian movement started by
> Ron Paulers. It has long since
> been co-opted by more standard mainstream Republicans, but many Tea
> Partiers still don't much like Romney.
>
> Likewise the Occupy! movement was started by an anarcholibertarian group
> before it was co-opted by standard mainstrean
> Democrat and pro-organized labour power groups. The "We are the 99%" was
> a term coined by
> anarcholibertarian David DeGraw. Here is what DeGraw had to say about the
> Occupy! movement:
>
>
> “Republicans and Democrats, along with their Wall Street masters,
> are so arrogant, deluded with wealth, completely lacking perspective,
> shortsighted and, quite frankly, ignorant.
>
> As the economic top one-tenth of one percent has more wealth than they
> have ever had,
> the middle class is quickly disappearing and poverty is soaring. As
> politicians ignore the
> needs of the suffering masses in favor of a Kleptocratic Oligarchy, which
> operates
> above the law, it is only a matter of time before an uprising takes hold.
>
>
> After analyzing societal and economic indicators within the US, in
> comparison to
> rebelling countries, it is not a matter of whether people will revolt or
> not, it’s a matter of when.”DeGraw, like most libertarians, thought
> that the problem and the solution was so simple that anyone with half a
> brain
> could grasp it. He didn't figure in the massive jello-like brown blob of
> systemic inertia.
>
> It was a brilliant co-optation strategy for the Establishment to identify
> Occupy! as left-wing, liberal Democrat-backed
> so as to divide them from other groups that have the 1% as a common enemy,
> such as the Tea Party and other libertarian
> and anarcholibertarian groups.
>
> The Enemy is neither D nor R. It has money. It has most of the money.
> It controls the media, and it has a deep hook set in the jaws of large
> numbers of
> people who are enthralled by what the 1% can do for them.
>
>
> On 9/7/2012 4:11 AM, Laurie Solomon wrote:
>
>
> > If working from within were a fools errand, then we have the fools in
> the religious right to thank for today's Republican Party, IMHO.
>
> I will not argue with you that the religious right is composed of fools;
> but I do not agree with you that their working from within the Republican
> Party has brought about the current Republican Party. That they have
> always been in the Republican party is not what I question; nor is the
> fact that they have been dominant off and on from time to time
> (particularly in hard economic times, times when the WASP values and
> interests were being challenged, and times when racial and ethnic
> superiority and authority were being challenged) something to be
> questioned. However, I do question that they alone via working within
> the party have been effective in gaining control and setting the policies
> and positions of the current Republican Party. That they have gained
> control and exerted influence over Party policies and practices is in no
> small measure fueled by external sources (i.e., global uncertainty and
> domestic insecurity, the state of the economy, the rapid increase in
> population size of minorities vis-à-vis the majority white population,
> the rise of external organizations such as the Tea Party & other
> right-wing militias and libertarian groups, etc.). In point of fact,
> many of the so-called 1% corporate captains of industry that have always
> controlled the Party and its policies held many of the same views and
> inclinations as those on in the religious right who are now more visible
> and vocal; but circumstances did not warrant their “coming out” so to
> speak since they already had formally or informally in place the
> practices and policies that they were advocating. WASPs controlled the
> country, minorities (racial and ethnic) were tacitly and informally kept
> under the thumb of the White power structure, Christianity – if not
> Protestantism – was the defacto religion of the country, immigration
> was tightly restricted when it came to non-Europeans, and gays remained
> closeted.
>
> >After the failure of the Goldwater folks, It was only 4 years before the
> more moderate Republicans were able to get Nixon elected.
> Ironically, it was Goldwater who feared and warned about the religious
> right and its involvement in politics and the Republican Party. Who says
> that it was the more moderate Republicans who got Nixon nominated and/or
> elected. You cannot be saying that Nixon was a moderate or did not have
> right-wing religious inclinations. Yes, he was a little more prudent,
> sophisticated, and pragmatic than today’s Republicans; but was that
> anything but a façade. For the most part, the changes in both parties
> reflect the changes in Amerikan society. Up until the Viet Nam war, the
> culture and ideology of Amerika was more or less homogeneous; with the
> Viet Nam war and after, it has become more diverse and contentious. Thus,
> while prior to Viet Nam, what I will call “gentleman” politics where
> the opponents were civil and willing to compromise was practiced for the
> most part; after Viet Nam, politics in Amerika grew up in a sense and
> became like the rest of the world where politics became ideological,
> lacking in civility, and uncompromising. The main difference between
> Amerika and the other countries in the world is that the other countries
> employ a parlimentary system in which a winner takes all criteria does not
> exist and compromise and/or coalitions are practiced unlike the U.S. where
> minority parties and positions are not given proportional representation
> in the legislatures or the main political parties. The main parties in
> the U.S have sought to be umbrella parties who try to appear as if they
> are pragmatically taking centrist positions and putting forth majority
> positions and candidates – even when they obviously are not really
> either umbrellas or centrist when one looks under the hood.
>
> >I do not believe that the 99%ers are some sort of monolithic group
> that all think the same way. Politics is a little like religion in that
> you have to BELIEVE to be a devout follower of either party, and willing
> to not only vote against your >personal best interest, but the best
> interest of the country.
>
> Good; but some people seem to thinks or that a majority of the 99%ers
> think the same way, support the same things, or have the same or similar
> interests. Like all general categories, they make oversimplified
> distinctions while ignoring substantive details. So you will agree that
> some of the 99%ers – and possibly a majority of them, although we have
> know way of knowing what portion of this category support or believe what
> – may actually support (1) the candidates, parties, and policies of the
> Republican Party;(2) the values, policies, and beliefs of the Tea Party;
> the views and practices of the religious right or other extremist groups;
> and or the positions and behaviors of the corporate establishment and/or
> the 1%. You will agree that many – if not a majority of the 99% may
> have vested interests that are different from those suggested by the
> Occupy movement and might even oppose that movement and their positions.
> You will also agree that it is possible that a large number of the 99%ers
> may even hold racist views, ethnic and gender biases, be anti-gay and/or
> anti immigrant, support various law enforcement and home security tactics
> and measures, and/or back national defense and foreign policies that have
> been recently instituted or currently exist.
>
> Yes politics is more than a little like religion in that you have to
> BELIEVE (i.e. be more or less a “true believer”) to be a devout
> follower of either party; but this in itself typically means that you are
> willing to vote against your own personal interests and/or the interests
> of the country but are not willing to vote against your political party
> and its candidates for almost any reason – a “my party and its
> candidates, platforms, and policies right or wrong” attitude. Thus,
> most of those who engage in politics as active or passive participants
> tend to be blind followers and those who merely observe or act a detached
> actors usually are cynical and complain but neither very seriously active
> nor without serious cases of apathy. Given what you say, how can you put
> any faith insiders bringing about change from inside their political
> parties. Especially since both major parties have become vehicles of
> corporate & labor bureaucratic organizational establishment, have adapted
> to the current cultural-technological-and economic societal environment
> and conditions.
>
> As for outside sources of change like the Occupy movement, They suggest
> or, on occasion, claim claim to represent the interests of the 99%; but
> as you suggest, the 99% do not all have the same or even similar
> interests, beliefs, or values. Moreover, we have no idea what proportion
> of the 99%ers support what independent of what spokes people in the
> Occupy movement claim or suggest. Nor do we know what the nature or
> strength of commitment the various categories of members or alleged members
> have with respect to movement activism and support when it comes to
> generating resources, giving time and energy, or taking risks. So at
> best, this movement may furnish a long range – if it lasts that long
> – amorphous pressure group for change in both the political and
> economic culture as well as in the political system and the political
> parties; but more than likely their positions will be absorbed and
> coopted by the parties and the system so as to result in insignificant
> symbolic reforms – mostly in language and platforms but not in actual
> action, practices, or policies – as has happened so often in the past
> with third parties and pressure groups and movements.
>
>
> FROM: [LINK: mailto:swag901 at ymail.com] Stan Waggoner
> SENT: September 06, 2012 9:20 AM
> TO: [LINK: mailto:LS1000 at LIVE.COM] LAURIE ; [LINK:
> mailto:peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net] peace-discuss
> SUBJECT: Re: [Peace-discuss] [OccupyCU] Finkelstein on Ghandi
>
>
> Laurie,
>
> If working from within were a fools errand, then we have the fools in the
> religious right to thank for today's Republican Party, IMHO.
>
> After the failure of the Goldwater folks, It was only 4 years before the
> more moderate Republicans were able to get Nixon elected.
>
> Then there is the Carter situation. The Baptist Church thought the
> election of Carter would give them a seat of power. Carter rejected
> their desire to take over our government. So the religious right took
> over the Republican Party one step at a time, and now we have what we
> have WRT the Republicans.
>
> I do not believe that the 99%ers are some sort of monolithic group that
> all think the same way. Politics is a little like religion in that you
> have to BELIEVE to be a devout follower of either party, and willing to
> not only vote against your personal best interest, but the best interest
> of the country.
>
> One step at a time the Democratic party can be moved to the left. We
> just have to do the hard work of getting people that can be elected
> thinking the right way. The veil of my "church" right or wrong must be
> torn down. The veil of my country, right or wrong must be replaced with
> standards that all countries must follow.
>
> We have allowed the Republicans for too long to be the party of
> "believers", while liberals keep searching for a new direction. Last
> week it was anti-war, this week it is anti-corporation. The easiest
> place to put both of these groups, and all the other splinters, together
> is under an existing organization's umbrella.
>
> As long as we are a bunch of scattered idealists, we will have no power.
> Without power, we can not save our country.
>
>
> FROM: LAURIE [LINK: mailto:LS1000 at LIVE.COM] mailto:LS1000 at LIVE.COM
> TO: Stan Waggoner [LINK: mailto:swag901 at ymail.com]
> mailto:swag901 at ymail.com; peace-discuss [LINK:
> mailto:peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net]
> mailto:peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net
> SENT: Wednesday, September 5, 2012 6:38 PM
> SUBJECT: Re: [Peace-discuss] [OccupyCU] Finkelstein on Ghandi
>
>
> Ok, I only got two copies of this message instead of the 8 copies I got
> the last time (but I will give it time to see if the other 6 copies show
> up). I realize that this problem may not be an issue that stems from
> your end (but in some cases it could be if one cc’s other forums and
> groups as well as the various individuals that the post is replying to).
>
>
> Second, I agree with you that the Democratic Party is first and foremost
> an establishment party just like the Republican Party ( they are both
> bought and sold by the establishment which is made up of both public and
> private bureaucracies in public and private organizations and business
> enterprises who have a vested interest in maintaining the status quo or
> the illusion of the status quo, fantasies and myths about the “good old
> days,”the virtues of hard work and self-made people, and notions of
> equity (if not equality) in which everyone gets what they earn and
> deserve through honest free competition and markets, etc. The so-called
> left-wing progressives in the Democratic Party resemble moderate
> Eisenhower Republicans and those Democrats that call themselves
> centralists look and ac t more like Goodwater Conservatives. This makes
> the Democratic Party resemble the Reagan Republican Party as you suggest.
>
>
> However, while your statement may have been intended as tongue-in-cheek;
> there are many who do hold the optimistic (if not utopian) view that a
> perfect or near-perfect third party can be established and that it will
> not be coopted by the practical realities of our political process and
> out society so as to become a substitute for or replacement of the current
> establishment political parties or just a new addition political party of
> the same type as the existing ones. This almost as pervasive as the
> optimistic myth that “the American People” or a large majority of the
> “99%” actually want and support what the “liberals” and
> “progressive” activists say that they do and who they claim to
> represent. If this were the case, even with extensive mass media
> propaganda and big budget expenditures of the corporate establishment and
> the 1%, of the “American People” and/or the majority of the
> “99%” would not be electing time after time and election after
> election the people that they do for public office. They would not be
> continually fooled into believing the media, the politicians, corporate
> establishment or any of their generalized and content-free promises.
> Similarly, I think that notions of working from the inside of any
> organization is not only a fool’s errand but overly optimistic. Minor
> peripheral reforms might be possible; but major systemic changes are not.
> They typically come from outside the organization. In the case of such
> animals as the political parties, their members constitute a captured
> audience in that they have no options but to belong to, support, and
> participate in the party organizations that they identify with and belong
> to. They operate under the premise that their party of choice is the
> lesser of two evils and better to have your evil people in power than the
> other party’s people. Thus, if they become dissatisfied, they do not
> leave their party and join the other one – except in the rarest of
> cases. Instead,, they are more likely to either drop out of the party
> and become cynical and apathetic or drop out of involvement with the
> political process totally in favor of going along silently with what ever
> happens in order to get along with the least practical immediate trouble
> to themselves and their family and friends.
>
>
> FROM: [LINK: mailto:swag901 at ymail.com] Stan Waggoner
> SENT: Wednesday, September 05, 2012 5:41 PM
> TO: [LINK: mailto:ls1000 at live.com] Laurie Solomon
> CC: [LINK: mailto:peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net] peace-discuss
> SUBJECT: Re: [Peace-discuss] [OccupyCU] Finkelstein on Ghandi
>
>
> First, I apologize for any duplicate emails you may have received. I
> promise I only hit send once. Gremlins I guess.
>
> Second, my post was intended to be a little tongue in cheek. Building a
> third party at this juncture of corporate spending on elections is, I
> think, a fools mission. Therefore, the only choice that makes any sense to
> me is to move the Democratic Party further left, as the Republican party
> has been moved to the right by the corporations.
>
> The Democratic Party of today looks more like the Republican Party of
> Reagan than I would like.
>
> Stan
>
>
> FROM: Laurie Solomon [LINK: mailto:ls1000 at live.com] mailto:ls1000 at live.com
> TO: Stan Waggoner [LINK: mailto:swag901 at ymail.com] mailto:swag901 at ymail.com
>
> CC: peace-discuss [LINK: mailto:peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net]
> mailto:peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net
> SENT: Wednesday, September 5, 2012 1:57 PM
> SUBJECT: Re: [Peace-discuss] [OccupyCU] Finkelstein on Ghandi
>
>
> I really do not want to get involved in this discussion; but something
> (besides the fact that I received 8 duplicate posts of the same message
> from Stan) has triggered my response mechanism. I have two questions to
> ask:
> First, I think the statement (“We can defeat them tomorrow by spending
> our time trying to build a perfect third party today”) is overly
> optimistic in many sense of the term. 1) What evidence do you have that a
> third party will result in defeating anyone in the future – much less
> bring about real policy changes? 2) When has there ever been a
> “perfect” third party; and what make you think that perfection is
> achievable – never mind any goal of absolute perfection and settling
> for partial perfection at a level significantly greater than has ever
> existed?
>
> Secondly, since many of the Democratic faithful would never vote
> Republican under any circumstances and see “bad” Democratic politicians
> and officials as being the lesser of two evils, how do you propose the
> threat to vote Republican or even third party to be taken seriously as a
> real threat by the likes of Feinstein, Emmanuel, or any other
> Democratic politician or official? I remember how Democrats complained
> about how votes for third party candidate, Ralph Nader, cost the
> Democrats a Presidential election and gave it to the Republicans. Given
> this sort of response to acting upon one’s threat to not vote for someone
> from the Democratic Party, such threats become meaningless.
>
>
> FROM: [LINK: mailto:swag901 at ymail.com] Stan Waggoner
> SENT: September 04, 2012 9:37 PM
> TO: [LINK: mailto:davegreen84 at yahoo.com] David Green
> CC: [LINK: mailto:peace-discuss at anti-war.net] peace-discuss at anti-war.net ;
> [LINK: mailto:occupycu at lists.chambana.net] occupycu at lists.chambana.net
>
> SUBJECT: Re: [Peace-discuss] [OccupyCU] Finkelstein on Ghandi
>
>
> There is more of us than them.
>
> Building one from scratch means getting some from them, and some from
> us, dividing both parties, and creating a third.
>
> In 1856 when the Whig party was already dieing that was doable.
>
> The easiest way now is to move the Democratic Party further to the left.
> We do it a step at a time, not moving mountains a Boulder at a time.
>
> One final thought. Both Dianne Feinstein and Rahm Emmanuel want to get
> re-elected. Without us they can not. They need to know that. We may be
> able to defeat them today by voting Republican. We can defeat them
> tomorrow by spending our time trying to build a perfect third party
> today.
>
> Stan
>
>
> FROM: David Green [LINK: mailto:davegreen84 at yahoo.com]
> mailto:davegreen84 at yahoo.com
> TO: Stan Waggoner [LINK: mailto:swag901 at ymail.com] mailto:swag901 at ymail.com
>
> CC: [LINK: mailto:peace-discuss at anti-war.net]
> mailto:peace-discuss at anti-war.net [LINK:
> mailto:peace-discuss at anti-war.net] mailto:peace-discuss at anti-war.net;
> [LINK: mailto:occupycu at lists.chambana.net]
> mailto:occupycu at lists.chambana.net [LINK:
> mailto:occupycu at lists.chambana.net] mailto:occupycu at lists.chambana.net
> SENT: Tuesday, September 4, 2012 8:22 PM
> SUBJECT: Re: [OccupyCU] Finkelstein on Ghandi
>
>
> If you bother to "take over" the party, then why not just build one from
> scratch, or take over one that is not being used. You're talking the
> party of Dianne Feinstein and Rahm Emmanuel.
>
>
> FROM: Stan Waggoner [LINK: mailto:swag901 at ymail.com]
> mailto:swag901 at ymail.com
> TO: David Green [LINK: mailto:davegreen84 at yahoo.com]
> mailto:davegreen84 at yahoo.com; [LINK: mailto:peace-discuss at anti-war.net]
> mailto:peace-discuss at anti-war.net [LINK:
> mailto:peace-discuss at anti-war.net] mailto:peace-discuss at anti-war.net;
> [LINK: mailto:occupycu at lists.chambana.net]
> mailto:occupycu at lists.chambana.net [LINK:
> mailto:occupycu at lists.chambana.net] mailto:occupycu at lists.chambana.net
> SENT: Tuesday, September 4, 2012 8:16 PM
> SUBJECT: Re: [OccupyCU] Finkelstein on Ghandi
>
>
> Ok, so those of us on the left should throw away the organizations that
> have gotten the Democratic party where it is, and start building a
> "perfect" Democratic Party. HooHaa.
>
> In the time it takes to do that, there will be nothing left for the
> "perfect" Democratic Party to govern.
>
> We need to go to the Democratic Party meetings each month, we need to
> call in to the Penny For Your Thoughts show on WDWS, we need to talk to
> each person we see, and tell them the truth. Anything less, anything
> other (third party), only lets the extreme right (Republican Party)
> destroy our country.
>
> We need to re-take the Democratic Party for the benefit of the PEOPLE not
> the party.
>
> Stan
> AKA Reasonable Man Stan
> WDWS
>
>
> FROM: David Green [LINK: mailto:davegreen84 at yahoo.com]
> mailto:davegreen84 at yahoo.com
> TO: [LINK: mailto:peace-discuss at anti-war.net]
> mailto:peace-discuss at anti-war.net [LINK:
> mailto:peace-discuss at anti-war.net] mailto:peace-discuss at anti-war.net;
> [LINK: mailto:occupycu at lists.chambana.net]
> mailto:occupycu at lists.chambana.net [LINK:
> mailto:occupycu at lists.chambana.net] mailto:occupycu at lists.chambana.net
> SENT: Tuesday, September 4, 2012 9:03 AM
> SUBJECT: [OccupyCU] Finkelstein on Ghandi
>
>
> [LINK:
> http://www.zcommunications.org/gandhi-and-occupy-by-norman-finkelstein]
> http://www.zcommunications.org/gandhi-and-occupy-by-norman-finkelstein
>
> There is a lot to be learned from Finkelstein's study of Gandhi that is
> relevant to tactics being discussed on various local lists. Notice that
> elections and voting in our two party system are (tellingly) not even
> mentioned. Neither party is mentioned. In my opinion, Republicans promote
> the neoliberal agenda by proposing extreme measures. Democrats promote
> the neoliberal agenda by proposing compromises with Republicans. This has
> been a collective effort for goals that rulers of both parties support.
> It's worked pretty well for 36 years, since the campaign of 1976 when
> Carter was elected.
>
> There are worthy goals of equality and recognition regarding race,
> gender, sexual orientation, immigrants, etc. still to be achieved,
> obviously. Unfortunately, these goals are by and large co-opted as a part
> of Democratic Party tactics to win votes for their ultimately neoliberal
> agenda, which ultimately converts genuine grievances into identity
> politics. That is why, even given an understanding of the historical
> struggle for voting rights for African-Americans, I'm left cold by all
> the attention being devoted to voting rights by the progressive media. Of
> course there are legitimate ongoing grievances and Republican outrages;
> but ultimately an emphasis on "working within the system" is only to the
> advantage of the domianant in a system based on domination.
>
> And don't forget that both parties will try to run to the "right" of each
> other regarding foreign policy, especially Israel; ain't nobody gonna get
> my Jewish vote.
>
> David Green
> _______________________________________________
> OccupyCU mailing list
> [LINK: mailto:OccupyCU at lists.chambana.net] OccupyCU at lists.chambana.net
> [LINK: http://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/occupycu]
> http://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/occupycu
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Peace-discuss mailing list
> [LINK: mailto:Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net]
> Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net
> [LINK: http://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss]
> http://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Peace-discuss mailing list
> [LINK: mailto:Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net]
> Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net
> [LINK: http://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss]
> http://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss
>
>
> --------------------
> _______________________________________________
> Peace-discuss mailing list
> [LINK: mailto:Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net]
> Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net
> [LINK: http://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss]
> http://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss
>
>
> --------------------
> _______________________________________________ Peace-discuss mailing list
> [LINK: mailto:Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net]
> Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net [LINK:
> http://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss]
> http://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss
>
>
> --------------------
> _______________________________________________
> Peace-discuss mailing list
> Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net
> http://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss
>
> --------------------
> _______________________________________________
> Peace-discuss mailing list
> [LINK: compose.php?to=Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net]
> Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net
> [LINK: http://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss]
> http://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss
More information about the Peace-discuss
mailing list